[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker on Avidya in Brahma Sutras

[V Subrahmanian]

The following is what SSS says in the ‘Reply’:

// *AdhyAsa*, of course, presupposes ignorance or want of true knowledge.
But this is a logical presupposition, a necessary implication of thought.
No positive entity like the unfortunate *MUlAvidyA* can claim precedence in
time over *adhyAsa; *for, as already said, time itself is its product.
Vedanta which predicates the unity of Brahman will be shattered to pieces,
if a second entity not subjected to or originating from *adhyAsa* be for a
moment conceded to exist. The reality of the not-self (*anAtman) *follows
necessarily from its not being *adhyAsa, *superimposed. I submit this vital
aspect of the system to the learned Professor for his deep consideration.//

From the above it is clear that SSS admits of an ignorance presupposing
adhyAsa. It is also clear, from the concluding remarks above, that SSS has,
erroneously, equated the bhAvarUpa status of mUlAvidyA with the Reality of
Brahman. He says that accepting a condition of ignorance prior to
superimposition is *a logical presupposition, a necessary implication of
thought. *What prevents him from extending this privilege of logical
necessity to the Acharyas who have found it necessary to posit a condition
preceding adhyAsa and naming it ‘mUlAvidyA’? It would be pertinent to
examine how and in what ways is the *‘want of knowledge’ or ‘jnAna abhAva’* as
his followers term it, is different in kind from the mUlAvidyA that SSS
opposes vehemently.


regards

subbu

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 11:43 AM Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste
>
> There are two objections raised by SSS and others not accepting Mula
> Avidya.
>
> One- There is no cause for Adhyasa and it is the same as Avidya.
>
> Two, Avidya is not Bhava Rupa.
>

Sri SSS

>
> Both objections are baseless. Mula Avidya Vadins are in agreement with
> Sankara Bhashya. Bhava Rupa means only Vyavaharika.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 11:13 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaste Praveen ji,
> >
> > Thanks for the interesting parallel with the vyAkaraNa sUtra and the
> > reference from Ratnaprabha. There are many interpretations indeed of the
> > tametam evamlakshaNam sentence - none of which consider mUlAvidyA to be
> > synonymous with adhyAsa.
> >
> > Re the contention that bhAvarUpatva of avidyA is a post Shankara
> construct,
> > there is a very interesting passage in the bRhadAraNyaka bhAShya to the
> > mantra 4.3.20 where the bhAvrUpatva of avidyA is indicated:
> >
> > तथा अविद्यायामप्युत्कृष्यमाणायाम् , तिरोधीयमानायां च विद्यायाम् ,
> > अविद्यायाः फलं प्रत्यक्षत एवोपलभ्यते — ‘अथ यत्रैनं घ्नन्तीव जिनन्तीव’
> इति ।
> > When ignorance increases and knowledge is suppressed, the results of
> > ignorance are directly perceived i.e. - "now, if he feels like he was as
> > though being killed, or as though being overpowered".
> >
> > Talk of the increase or decrease of something can only apply if the thing
> > increasing or decreasing is of the nature of being transactionally
> > existent. If it is transactionally non-existent, no degrees of increase
> or
> > decrease are tenable. It is binary - if knowledge is present, ignorance,
> of
> > the nature of the abence of knowledge, is absent and vice versa.
> >
> > Later on, adhyAsa as a product of avidyA  is being talked about:
> >
> > अत इदम् अविद्यायाः सतत्त्वमुक्तं भवति — सर्वात्मानं सन्तम् असर्वात्मत्वेन
> > ग्राहयति, आत्मनः अन्यत् वस्त्वन्तरम् अविद्यमानं प्रत्युपस्थापयति,
> आत्मानम्
> > असर्वमापादयति ; ततस्तद्विषयः कामो भवति ; यतो भिद्यते कामतः,
> > क्रियामुपादत्ते, ततः फलम् — तदेतदुक्तम् । वक्ष्यमाणं च ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव
> > भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति’ (बृ. उ. २ । ४ । १४), (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) इत्यादि
> ।
> > इदम् अविद्यायाः सतत्त्वं सह कार्येण प्रदर्शितम् ; विद्यायाश्च कार्यं
> > सर्वात्मभावः प्रदर्शितः अविद्याया विपर्ययेण ।
> >
> > In discussing the nature of avidyA, Shankaracharya says that it is that
> > which causes the self which is the all, to appear limited (असर्वात्मत्वेन
> > *ग्राहयति*), causes things other than the self, which are not really
> > present, to appear (अन्यत् वस्त्वन्तरम् अविद्यमानं *प्रत्युपस्थापयति*),
> > superimposed finitude upon the self (आत्मानम् *असर्वमापादयति*). The
> > causative verbs used in connection with avidyA is indicative of it being
> > bhAvarUpa - for, how can the absence of things lead to a positive
> outcome?
> >
> > That such an adhyAsa is the product of avidyA is also mentioned above
> इदम्
> > अविद्यायाः सतत्त्वं *सह कार्येण *प्रदर्शितम् ;
> >
> > Regards
> > Venkatraghavan
> >
> > On Wed, 18 May 2022, 15:12 Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l, <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Namaste Venkat ji,
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:13 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It appears that Hacker's conclusion that avidyA is the same as
> adhyAsa
> > > > rests on the bhAShya sentence "tametam evamlakshaNam adhyAsam paNDitA
> > > > adhyAseti manyante". He concludes from this that according to
> Shankara,
> > > > avidyA is the same as adhyAsa, which differentiates him from later
> > > > advaitins.
> > > >
> > >
> > > True. Hacker's taking avidyA as adhyAsa literally seems to be the
> > starting
> > > point for all errors and this very topic has been discussed multiple
> > times
> > > on this list. Looks like it is a never-ending issue. I'd also like to
> > > revisit the same and add a couple of points. A simple way to look at
> > > bhAShya statement tam etam evam lakShaNam adhyAsam paNDitAH avidyA iti
> > > manyante/ तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति मन्यन्ते is to say
> that
> > he
> > > is quoting someone that he doesn't completely agree. On the vyAkaraNa
> > > sUtra, lopaH shAkalyasya, it is said that Panini doesn't agree with
> lopaH
> > > as he states that it is the opinion of Shakalya, but he respects it,
> > making
> > > it an optional lopaH. Similarly here, Panditas consider adhyAsa as
> > avidyA,
> > > but Bhagavan Bhashyakara doesn't necessarily agree. The other answer
> > would
> > > be as seen in the Bhashyaratnaprabha on it which raises a pUrvapakSha
> so:
> > > tathApi kAraNAvidyAM tyaktvA kAryAvidyA kimiti varNyate tatrAha --
> > tatreti.
> > > tasmin adhyAse ukta nyAyena, avidyAtmake sati ityarthaH/
> > >
> > > तथापि कारणाविद्यां त्यक्त्वा कार्याविद्या किमिति वर्ण्यते तत्राह -
> > >
> > > तत्रेति ।
> > >
> > > तस्मिन्नध्यासे उक्तन्यायेनाविद्यात्मके सतीत्यर्थः । मूलाविद्यायाः
> > > सषुप्तावनर्थत्वादर्शनात्कार्यात्मना तस्या अनर्थत्वज्ञापनार्थं
> > तद्वर्णनमिति
> > > भावः । The reason that the mUlAvidyA/ kAraNavidyA is not described but
> > the
> > > kAryAvidyA is because its adversities are unknown during deep sleep.
> > Since
> > > the adversities of the resultant avidyA. adhyAsa are easily known, the
> > same
> > > is made known of its causal avidyA.
> > >
> > > On a related note, the endless complaints repeating differences of
> > > mithyA +jnAna and mithyA + ajnAna compound split by Hacker and his
> > > followers is laughable. The reason is that both jnAna and ajnAna are
> > mithyA
> > > in the sampradAya. The objection against sub-commentators that they tag
> > > avidyA as bhAvarUpa is flawed too, as by disagreeing to mithyAjnAna as
> > > mithyA+ajnAna, ajnAna would become non-mithyA and thereby bhAvarUpa
> > (their
> > > misunderstanding of whatever bhAvarUpa is) for the opponents
> themselves!
> > > The same is not a flaw when sampradAya states that ajnAna is mithyA
> > because
> > > bhAvarUpa doesn't mean sadrUpa but means it is not asadrUpa = yat
> kinchit
> > > bhAvarUpa.
> > >
> > > gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> > > --Praveen R. Bhat
> > > /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one
> know
> > > That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>